Wait. Define caveman. Are you referring to cromagnon or something earlier? I think it is a tough case to make that homoegaster or homoerectus(lol) were just as intelligent as modern man.(of course they did not dwell in caves, but are commonly referred to as cavemen anyways.)
The point being made here is that our intelligence level has not increased much since caveman's times. However our level of knowledge is vastly superior, but wouldn't help us much in a primitive environment. He said it, I believe it, that settles it!
wow you say morons while showing pictures of scruffy builders and then a shot of a ape man...did you ever talk to those guys in that shot or are you just showing your own ugly judgmental prejudiced
You are belaboring an obvious point here - of course our biology hasn't changed much over the last 100,000 years, such is the pace of evolution. Also of course most of us today wouldn't survive long if dumped into a caveman's environment, *because we weren't brought up in it* is all. Any more brilliant revelations?
How would you explain the first cavemen then? They obviously survived long enough to reproduce. They didn't have any past experience of living in that environment, just as you say that current men wouldn't survive because they "weren't brought up in it."
@hXcDiedWithHitler Are you kidding? There weren't any "first" cave men, because there is no line between "cave man" and "not cave man" Every living thing is related: life forms evolved gradually, parent to child, and as the descendants multiplied and dispersed over time they became more and more different from their ancestors until the differences were so great they could no longer interbreed and became different species. The same applies to survival with adaptation to new environments.
Caveman didn't spontaneously learn to survive in the wild, they too took generations of trial and error to educate themselves on hunting, survival .etc
Shut the fuck up. Our ability to reason is what makes us stand out from the rest of the animal world. I guarantee most humans would survive in a caveman world knowing what we know now dumbass. The only problem we have is working together and you can blame religion for that.
With no tools, I'd say it would take me quite a while and many attempts to make a bow & arrow that would be good enough to kill an animal. Who today knows how to cure skins to make clothing; find, form & fire clay to make a pot, start a fire, make a rope, find iron ore & coal, make an axe.
If we had our trappings of civilisation taken from us, it would take generations just to get out of the stone age, even with the head start of the knowledge we have of what is possible.
6. Because they would assume that metal alloys are the defining characteristic of human survival.
The challenge presented was not if we could return to our present state of being, but if we could survive. Wishing for what you can not have only ensures the lack of survival!
assuming a good diet is the basis for well functioning brain and therefore intelligence... yes we are smarter then caveman, we have an array of different "fuels" for our brain these days... (vitamins, minerals, proteins and sugars, water)... actually the first good ideas that we had, we had them after we invented agriculture that assured a flow of essential nutrients to the brain on a daily basis.
I am sure we could survive in a caveman's environment, we just lose a lot of comforts, need to work hard and prolly live less long as well~ (Due to less obvious advantages and benefits)
Glad to know I'm not the only one who has these thoughts. I'd like to see how successful one of these people who speak ill of early humans figure out how to build a cooking fire or find safe shelter with no prior understanding. :P
At the very least better nutrition improves brain development and function, and living longer enables you to become more wise, so yes we are better off.
Human nature is constant. Human nature is flawed. When one realizes these truths, they’ll learn why human progress is impossible, and thus why liberal progressivism is a mere pipedream.
Our human nature evolved under the conditions experienced for hundreds of millenia by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Human nature, while imperfect and flawed, is very well adapted for those conditions. The modern, technological world, made possible through agriculture....is something that our nature often has difficulty with.
All evolution claims is that those who leave the most offspring will see their traits propogate through the population over time. It makes no claims about who's "best" as we humans would describe them.
Well, the best definition I heard is: "Intelligence is what the "Intelligence test" measures"
This is the only definition I can measure and use for more than mere philosophical fantasy.
And of course according to this definition, we're much smarter than cavemen (as all intelligence tests only measure our knowledge, at least if you take a very profound definition of knowledge, that includes learned thinking skills, like the ability of logic reasoning)
Your definition is nonsense...since it does not define at all what intelligence is. If one has no idea what we are talking about with the term 'intelloigence', then your definition provides no assistance at all.
"intelligence is what the intelligence test measures"
This does not define, at all....what is meant by intelligence.
"Miles are what the mileage meter measures" does not provide us with any insight into what is a mile? Do you understand my objection now?
We can define knowledge, and goals, and obstacles as we see fit. Intelligence is how computational beings use knowledge to achieve goals while overcoming obstacles.
Well, a definition is not a way of describing what an object is, but a creation of an abstract class, that an object can either fit in or can't. The meter was defined for a long time by the "Prototype Meter", without any philosophical insight in the nature of a meter being necessary.
We can of course define the intelligence by something abstract, but then it will be without practical significance. The IQ-tests try to measure what you defined, but they're handy to work along with.
There are of course several meanings to the word intelligence. But here, we need intelligence as quantity, because we're using it for comparison. Your deifinition is not directly quantifiable.
I don't get why my definition is not giving meaning to the word intelligence. If I say it is everything an IQ-test measures, you have a clearly defined constraint, which tells you, what intelligence means.
Another thing, intelligence is not quantity in the same way that we measure cups of flour. Also, IQ tests are only of any use if you compare people of similar cultural backgrounds and education levels. Otherwise, it's just apples and oranges.
Well, I hope you agree that a definition of an abstract term, such as intelligence cannot be descriptive in its nature. Also, you cannot talk about "smarter", if your definition only describes the nature of intelligence or defines what is intelligent. There are many intelligence tests out there (unlike Blart-tests), though I left it open which one is best to determine ones intelligence.
Of course a comparison of caveman and us is not very helpful, it shows that people
You asked the wrong question. We are products of our genes, upbringing, and culture.
Taking a modern human and dropping them into a completely foreign environment [of the hunter gatherer] would be like taking that ancient hunter gathere and dropping him into our world. I think that we can see that both would likely fail.
How about this? Take a modern human infant and raise it in that ancient environment; take a neanderthal infant, and raise it in the modern world.
Humans are social creatures. We need each other to survive. This was as true for cave men as it is for us today. A human thrust into a wilderness would need the knowledge of indigenous people to survive, much like we require the knowledge of our own culture to survive to survive in the environment our culture has created.
A caveman would do just as bad in our society as we in theirs, so this does little to demonstrate differences in intellect.
this is stupid, the caveman learned to survive in the environment that it lives in, thought by its parents. and lt was a caveman all its life. so the avrage person will have some trouble at fist but will do it just as easily as would a caveman would. but we will survive better because we have some advanced knowledge about the world. unlike the caveman.
I would say that the average 16 year old from the hood, could not only thrive in the caveman society put probably come to rule it. would the most intelligent caveman survive and thrive in todays society without help? i think not. good point about morons multiplying tho.
Our intelligence has increased. I think this is obvious. Female suffrage. The ending of slavery in the free world. Gay rights. And the obvious reality that we have been able to manipulate matter, our earth and it's elements into ways never dreamed of by man just several generations ago. Flight. Space travel. Computers, modern medicine, cell phones, the internet.
Natural selection means almost nothing to us today, but artificial, sexual selection still puts pressure on our species to evolve. We'll probably always pick the healthiest, smartest, most attractive ones that will fuck us. I do think we overestimate our intelligence and underestimate anything else's, but I don't think we're equally intelligent. I think intelligence is comprised of a lot of things, definitely an ability to learn. Dawkins would say the new evolution is in ideas, not biology.
Well a few problems :> Cavemen likly had a long time to learn and it's not like day one they all learnt to make fire and create weapons and such, so alot of that would be learned too, and alot of the knowledge they gained could be by accident, *using a rock to kill something attacking and finding a flint with sharp edge killed well* or such. I think tests have shown that even within the last 2000 years average inteligence has gone up. Though we are likly nearing a idiocracy.
@wolfwing1 How long could a caveman have had to learn? If he couldnt figure out a way to find food,water, shelter within a few days, he would be dead already. I mean its not like the caveman would have a few decades to figure out how to survive...he had to do it day one.
@peilthetraveler ehhhh, 7 million years to learn? It's not like caveman one day just instantly evolved on the spot from something that could drink toilet water and survive, and eat raw meat, to something that had to drink cleaner water, and cooked meat. As their abilities to do and to think grew, so did at about the same rate I would suspect their abilities to hunt and such. Do other great apes have a hard time hunting, eating, and finding water? Some chimpanzee's hunt bush babies.
There have been numerous surprises in brain research, and one is that brain size is not necessarily the deciding factor in intelligence. Look at us and our disdain for the emotional. Yet research is finding that emotions are essential to functionality, let alone survival. We've gone to great lengths to emphasize the rational at the expense of the emotional, yet, I think we do need to get in touch with our inner caveman. When we can integrate the emotional and rational, I think we'll leap ahead.
@RichardRoy2 Indeed emotions have played a large part in our survival pre-civilisation. However, We are in dire need of retunement as our environment is no longer what it was in ancient times.
I do believe that in general we have advanced in intelligence, but only slightly, as evolution moves slowly on its own, at least it is so to our perception.
Bear Grills could survive.
MasterofDisaster17 6 months ago
Wait. Define caveman. Are you referring to cromagnon or something earlier? I think it is a tough case to make that homoegaster or homoerectus(lol) were just as intelligent as modern man.(of course they did not dwell in caves, but are commonly referred to as cavemen anyways.)
polkg123 6 months ago
The point being made here is that our intelligence level has not increased much since caveman's times. However our level of knowledge is vastly superior, but wouldn't help us much in a primitive environment. He said it, I believe it, that settles it!
caprino54 7 months ago
@caprino54 That doesn't settle anything for anyone other than you.
hacelocononda 7 months ago
wow you say morons while showing pictures of scruffy builders and then a shot of a ape man...did you ever talk to those guys in that shot or are you just showing your own ugly judgmental prejudiced
lyntonio 7 months ago
You are belaboring an obvious point here - of course our biology hasn't changed much over the last 100,000 years, such is the pace of evolution. Also of course most of us today wouldn't survive long if dumped into a caveman's environment, *because we weren't brought up in it* is all. Any more brilliant revelations?
hznfrst 7 months ago
@hznfrst
How would you explain the first cavemen then? They obviously survived long enough to reproduce. They didn't have any past experience of living in that environment, just as you say that current men wouldn't survive because they "weren't brought up in it."
hXcDiedWithHitler 7 months ago
@hXcDiedWithHitler Are you kidding? There weren't any "first" cave men, because there is no line between "cave man" and "not cave man" Every living thing is related: life forms evolved gradually, parent to child, and as the descendants multiplied and dispersed over time they became more and more different from their ancestors until the differences were so great they could no longer interbreed and became different species. The same applies to survival with adaptation to new environments.
hznfrst 7 months ago
Caveman didn't spontaneously learn to survive in the wild, they too took generations of trial and error to educate themselves on hunting, survival .etc
MarkArandjus 7 months ago
I'd be dead in a week.
1971SuperLead 8 months ago
lame
captainsentient 8 months ago
Shut the fuck up. Our ability to reason is what makes us stand out from the rest of the animal world. I guarantee most humans would survive in a caveman world knowing what we know now dumbass. The only problem we have is working together and you can blame religion for that.
sambricky 8 months ago
actually yes, i do hunt, i know how to make fire and keep it going and i know how to fuck. the essentials to keeping the species going.
The1SunyD 8 months ago
With no tools, I'd say it would take me quite a while and many attempts to make a bow & arrow that would be good enough to kill an animal. Who today knows how to cure skins to make clothing; find, form & fire clay to make a pot, start a fire, make a rope, find iron ore & coal, make an axe.
If we had our trappings of civilisation taken from us, it would take generations just to get out of the stone age, even with the head start of the knowledge we have of what is possible.
Wordavee1 8 months ago
@Wordavee1
Most people would not survive:
1. Because they would assume that no tools were presently available.
2. Because they would assume they needed some elaborate weapon to fell an animal.
3. Because they assume they need clothing more then they need shelter.
4. Because they assume having a semlence of urbane civility (fired clay pots) is important.
5. Because they wouldn't know a rope if they saw one.
tlrlml 8 months ago
6. Because they would assume that metal alloys are the defining characteristic of human survival.
The challenge presented was not if we could return to our present state of being, but if we could survive. Wishing for what you can not have only ensures the lack of survival!
tlrlml 8 months ago
@tlrlml
You assume people would assume so you'll get hit over the head and killed by your cave mate who likes your wife.
doford 7 months ago
assuming a good diet is the basis for well functioning brain and therefore intelligence... yes we are smarter then caveman, we have an array of different "fuels" for our brain these days... (vitamins, minerals, proteins and sugars, water)... actually the first good ideas that we had, we had them after we invented agriculture that assured a flow of essential nutrients to the brain on a daily basis.
shadman1911 8 months ago
I am sure we could survive in a caveman's environment, we just lose a lot of comforts, need to work hard and prolly live less long as well~ (Due to less obvious advantages and benefits)
CommS007 9 months ago
this video is what i have been thinking for a longtime i think i would survive in the wild tho
10phoenix01 9 months ago
"morons reproduce all the time"... roflmao... true...
earthypig 9 months ago
i think u got your touch back with this video ^_^
earthypig 9 months ago
Yes, I could.
squirreljester2 11 months ago
Glad to know I'm not the only one who has these thoughts. I'd like to see how successful one of these people who speak ill of early humans figure out how to build a cooking fire or find safe shelter with no prior understanding. :P
DominicBuchholz 11 months ago
At the very least better nutrition improves brain development and function, and living longer enables you to become more wise, so yes we are better off.
NikiDaDude 11 months ago
Human nature is constant. Human nature is flawed. When one realizes these truths, they’ll learn why human progress is impossible, and thus why liberal progressivism is a mere pipedream.
BlameTheFirst 11 months ago
@BlameTheFirst
Our human nature evolved under the conditions experienced for hundreds of millenia by our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Human nature, while imperfect and flawed, is very well adapted for those conditions. The modern, technological world, made possible through agriculture....is something that our nature often has difficulty with.
kshackleton 11 months ago
I heard a theory that evolution has gone into reverse as we send our best off to fight and leave the f*ckwits behind to breed...
tdp1909 11 months ago
@tdp1909
All evolution claims is that those who leave the most offspring will see their traits propogate through the population over time. It makes no claims about who's "best" as we humans would describe them.
kshackleton 11 months ago
Another thought, your definition of intelligence is somewhat ambiguous.
The best definition that I heard is this:
Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge, to achieve goals, while overcoming obstacles.
Cheers
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton
Well, the best definition I heard is: "Intelligence is what the "Intelligence test" measures"
This is the only definition I can measure and use for more than mere philosophical fantasy.
And of course according to this definition, we're much smarter than cavemen (as all intelligence tests only measure our knowledge, at least if you take a very profound definition of knowledge, that includes learned thinking skills, like the ability of logic reasoning)
Nederdien 11 months ago
@Nederdien
Your definition is nonsense...since it does not define at all what intelligence is. If one has no idea what we are talking about with the term 'intelloigence', then your definition provides no assistance at all.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton
It is an absurd way of reasoning, to first assume an unspoken definition of intelligence and then argue, that my definition does not fit it.
My definition is clear, as several "intelligence tests" are defined and it allows somebody, to determine exactly how intelligent someone is.
While your definition contains two unknowable constraints: the knowledge and the goal.
Nederdien 11 months ago
@Nederdien
"intelligence is what the intelligence test measures"
This does not define, at all....what is meant by intelligence.
"Miles are what the mileage meter measures" does not provide us with any insight into what is a mile? Do you understand my objection now?
We can define knowledge, and goals, and obstacles as we see fit. Intelligence is how computational beings use knowledge to achieve goals while overcoming obstacles.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton
Well, a definition is not a way of describing what an object is, but a creation of an abstract class, that an object can either fit in or can't. The meter was defined for a long time by the "Prototype Meter", without any philosophical insight in the nature of a meter being necessary.
We can of course define the intelligence by something abstract, but then it will be without practical significance. The IQ-tests try to measure what you defined, but they're handy to work along with.
Nederdien 11 months ago
@Nederdien
Word Salad....you make little sense. Here is what a definition is:
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
Your "definition" of intelligence provided neither meaning nor significance of the word "intelligence".
My stated definition was somewhat closer.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton
There are of course several meanings to the word intelligence. But here, we need intelligence as quantity, because we're using it for comparison. Your deifinition is not directly quantifiable.
I don't get why my definition is not giving meaning to the word intelligence. If I say it is everything an IQ-test measures, you have a clearly defined constraint, which tells you, what intelligence means.
Nederdien 11 months ago
@Nederdien
Look at it this way:
"What's a Blart?"
"Well, it's what the Blart-test measures."
"What's a Blart-test?"
"I quantifies the Blartness of your Snigdarf."
So, do you have any idea what Blart is?
kshackleton 11 months ago
@Nederdien
Another thing, intelligence is not quantity in the same way that we measure cups of flour. Also, IQ tests are only of any use if you compare people of similar cultural backgrounds and education levels. Otherwise, it's just apples and oranges.
kshackleton 11 months ago
@kshackleton
Well, I hope you agree that a definition of an abstract term, such as intelligence cannot be descriptive in its nature. Also, you cannot talk about "smarter", if your definition only describes the nature of intelligence or defines what is intelligent. There are many intelligence tests out there (unlike Blart-tests), though I left it open which one is best to determine ones intelligence.
Of course a comparison of caveman and us is not very helpful, it shows that people
Nederdien 10 months ago
You asked the wrong question. We are products of our genes, upbringing, and culture.
Taking a modern human and dropping them into a completely foreign environment [of the hunter gatherer] would be like taking that ancient hunter gathere and dropping him into our world. I think that we can see that both would likely fail.
How about this? Take a modern human infant and raise it in that ancient environment; take a neanderthal infant, and raise it in the modern world.
kshackleton 11 months ago
good point
mytza4all 11 months ago
I would survive better in his world than he would in mine
AnonaThetan 11 months ago
it is a pretty wierd question if you ask me... the inteligence a person has can be expanded and developed by doing activitys that stimultes the brain
julianwhitee 11 months ago
Humans are social creatures. We need each other to survive. This was as true for cave men as it is for us today. A human thrust into a wilderness would need the knowledge of indigenous people to survive, much like we require the knowledge of our own culture to survive to survive in the environment our culture has created.
A caveman would do just as bad in our society as we in theirs, so this does little to demonstrate differences in intellect.
FlowCell 11 months ago
With the right training we could and some of us still do.
jesokingcryst 11 months ago
this is stupid, the caveman learned to survive in the environment that it lives in, thought by its parents. and lt was a caveman all its life. so the avrage person will have some trouble at fist but will do it just as easily as would a caveman would. but we will survive better because we have some advanced knowledge about the world. unlike the caveman.
samuelx41 11 months ago
I would say that the average 16 year old from the hood, could not only thrive in the caveman society put probably come to rule it. would the most intelligent caveman survive and thrive in todays society without help? i think not. good point about morons multiplying tho.
testament 11 months ago 3
Our intelligence has increased. I think this is obvious. Female suffrage. The ending of slavery in the free world. Gay rights. And the obvious reality that we have been able to manipulate matter, our earth and it's elements into ways never dreamed of by man just several generations ago. Flight. Space travel. Computers, modern medicine, cell phones, the internet.
216trixie 11 months ago
Interesting movie u probably have already seen if you havent its called "Idiocrasy" directed by the guy who directed "Beavis & Butthead"
cloudsat7326 11 months ago
Did cavemen survive because of their "intelligence" or because of what they were taught?
vickmackey24 11 months ago 3
Natural selection means almost nothing to us today, but artificial, sexual selection still puts pressure on our species to evolve. We'll probably always pick the healthiest, smartest, most attractive ones that will fuck us. I do think we overestimate our intelligence and underestimate anything else's, but I don't think we're equally intelligent. I think intelligence is comprised of a lot of things, definitely an ability to learn. Dawkins would say the new evolution is in ideas, not biology.
andid 11 months ago
Great Video, I would like to see if people today have the intelligence to survive back as caveman
JustFingerPainting 11 months ago
We are, we are progressing, in fact, our iq has gone up 35 points since the fifties. I think it is shitty that you make these baseless assertions.
joshrocks11 11 months ago
Excellent point. I know I couldn't do it, that's for sure.
doug1119 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're right, man.
BlazeTheMovieFan 11 months ago
I'd say we're getting stupider as a society. Ancient man was a genius. Look at the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Aztecs, etc.
RocknForJesus 11 months ago
I love how thought provoking your videos always are!
kurtkaboom 11 months ago
I agree with what you said. I always have to role my eyes when people talk about people in the past like dumb sheep herders for example.
One thing our modern advancements do is give the few geniuses more to work with.
owchywawa 11 months ago
Of course we could survive, thanks to mr Bear Grills :D
eppik 11 months ago 2
Well a few problems :> Cavemen likly had a long time to learn and it's not like day one they all learnt to make fire and create weapons and such, so alot of that would be learned too, and alot of the knowledge they gained could be by accident, *using a rock to kill something attacking and finding a flint with sharp edge killed well* or such. I think tests have shown that even within the last 2000 years average inteligence has gone up. Though we are likly nearing a idiocracy.
wolfwing1 11 months ago
@wolfwing1 How long could a caveman have had to learn? If he couldnt figure out a way to find food,water, shelter within a few days, he would be dead already. I mean its not like the caveman would have a few decades to figure out how to survive...he had to do it day one.
peilthetraveler 11 months ago
@peilthetraveler ehhhh, 7 million years to learn? It's not like caveman one day just instantly evolved on the spot from something that could drink toilet water and survive, and eat raw meat, to something that had to drink cleaner water, and cooked meat. As their abilities to do and to think grew, so did at about the same rate I would suspect their abilities to hunt and such. Do other great apes have a hard time hunting, eating, and finding water? Some chimpanzee's hunt bush babies.
wolfwing1 11 months ago
I've figured a lot of things out by teaching myself. Very thought provoking video man. I have to question myself because of this video. :)
xRandomShadowManx 11 months ago
I was going to comment but then I didn't feel a need to, the irony is in doing so I have now commented.
Sadochrist 11 months ago
There have been numerous surprises in brain research, and one is that brain size is not necessarily the deciding factor in intelligence. Look at us and our disdain for the emotional. Yet research is finding that emotions are essential to functionality, let alone survival. We've gone to great lengths to emphasize the rational at the expense of the emotional, yet, I think we do need to get in touch with our inner caveman. When we can integrate the emotional and rational, I think we'll leap ahead.
RichardRoy2 11 months ago
Comment removed
NetraAmorosi 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RichardRoy2 Indeed emotions have played a large part in our survival pre-civilisation. However, We are in dire need of retunement as our environment is no longer what it was in ancient times.
I do believe that in general we have advanced in intelligence, but only slightly, as evolution moves slowly on its own, at least it is so to our perception.
NetraAmorosi 11 months ago
I'm pretty sure that the answer is yes.
The brain size is bigger, therefor I assume that we are more intelligent.
ILIYYILI 11 months ago